212 Developmental Psychology
social learning theory drew much of its theoretical founda-
tion from developments in the new cognitive science, with
its insights into attention and memory. Not only were drives
and drive reduction unnecessary for learning, according to
Bandura, but reinforcement was unnecessary either for the
acquisition of new responses or the modification of old re-
sponses. Along with new mechanisms for learning, Bandura
dismissed the Freudian baggage of the earlier Sears era. In-
stead, a more eclectic theory of socialization, which drew
from sociology, anthropology, and other disciplines, served
as a guide. In a series of influential experimental studies,
Bandura and his colleagues revitalized the study of social
development by reintroducing experimental approaches in
studies of the observational learning of aggression (e.g.,
Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961). Unfortunately, like most
learning theory approaches, the focus was more on learning
and less on development (see Grusec, 1992).
From Social Interaction to Social Relationships
An area of intense focus in this period was the social inter-
active processes and the ways in which these face-to-face
processes develop into social relationships (Hartup &
Rubin, 1986; Hinde, 1979). A prominent issue was the un-
derstanding of social interaction patterns among infants,
children, and their social partners. Emphasis on the mutual
regulation of the partners’ behavior, concern about detailed
description, and quantification of the tempo and flow of the
interactive interchange clearly separated the current work
from its earlier antecedents (Cohn & Tronick, 1987; Field,
1991). In addition, developmental psychologists in this era
went beyond studying the process of interaction per se to
use interaction as a window into social relationships (Hinde,
1979).
The most influential theory exemplifying this theme was
John Bowlby’s (1907–1990) theory of attachment (1969,
1973, 1980). This theory offered a new account of the ways in
which infants come to form close relations with their care-
givers. Instead of a fusion between the constructs of Hull and
Freud, it represented a marriage between ethology and psy-
choanalysis. Bowlby proposed that attachment has its roots in
a set of instinctual infant responses that are important for the
protection and survival of the species. The infant responses of
crying, smiling, sucking, clinging, and following elicit the
parental care and protection that the baby needs and promote
contact between the child and the parents. Just as the infant is
biologically prepared to respond to the sights, sounds, and
nurturance provided by caregivers, parents are biologically
prepared to respond to these eliciting behaviors on the part of
the infant. As a result of these biologically programmed
responses, both parent and infant develop a mutual attach-
ment. From this perspective, attachment is a relationship, not
simply a set of behaviors of either the parent or the infant
(Sroufe & Fleeson, 1986).
Moreover, in this era, there was an increasing appreciation
of the range of characters who play a prominent role in
children’s social relationships. The definition of family
expanded to include not only the mother–infant dyad but fa-
thers, siblings, and grandparents as well (Dunn & Kendrick,
1982; Lamb, 1975; Tinsley & Parke, 1984).
There was also a growing appreciation of the embedded-
ness of children and families in a variety of social systems
outside the family, including peers, school, and kin-based
networks (Bronfenbrenner, 1986, 1989; Cochran & Brassard,
1979), which led to an interest in peer and other relationships
outside the family (Asher & Gottman, 1981). This focus on
relationships was part of a more general reorientation away
from a focus on the individual as the unit of analysis to
dyadic and larger units of analysis.Embracing EmotionOne of the most dramatic shifts during this period was the
renewed interest in the development of emotions in infancy.
Topics such as social smiling, stranger anxiety, and fear of
heights were of interest in the 1960s (Gibson & Walk, 1960),
but the motivation for conducting such studies was to use
emotions to index something else—usually perceptual or
cognitive process (Campos & Barrett, 1985). The timing
of the development of emotions and the role of emotions in
social interaction were of little interest at that time. In the
1970s and 1980s, however, the role of affect became an
issue of increasing concern throughout psychology (e.g.,
Campos, Barrett, Lamb, Goldsmith, & Stenberg, 1983). The
developmental origins of both the production and recogni-
tion of emotions, as well as the role of emotional expres-
sions in the regulation of social interaction, became central
concerns of developmental psychologists, especially infancy
researchers.
In light of research by Ekman (Ekman & Friesen, 1978)
and Izard (1982), the older assumption that facial response
patterns are not specific to discrete emotional states was dis-
counted. Evidence suggested that facial expressions may be,
at least in part, governed by genetically encoded programs
and universally recognized (Ekman & Friesen, 1978). The
recognition that emotional expressions have a role in the reg-
ulation of social behavior, another important development in
this era, was exemplified in studies of face-to-face interaction
of parents and infants (e.g., Brazelton, Koslowski, & Main,
1974; Stern, 1977, 1985; Tronick, 1989).